So, Chromebooks...

I'll maintain that it still has potential and is actually a pretty novel concept.

How?

Android is better in every way. It also gets more love from the same parent company. It had the disadvantage (in theory) that it was on ARM instead of x86... but that's now gone in both directions. ChromeOS is moving to ARM and Android is getting x86 lovin' from Intel.

Long term I'm sure they get merged now that Chrome is becoming the Android browser, and ChromeOS is basically just Chrome + an SDK + keyboard interface.

I think the new ones look very good, and useful. it will be most suited for people who to the majority of their work in the browser (and these days MANY people do live in the browser), and the price point is VERY attractive.

While I think apps for work that are purely web/browser based are becoming more evident in every day life, I think that the likelihood of a system that's based solely on this will go the way of devices like the iOpener back 10 years ago or so. You can get a brand new laptop running Windows 7 with specs that blow the Chromebooks away for $300-$350 all day long, why wouldn't you?

Now, if the prices were lower.. Much, much lower, I could see them hanging around for a while.

While I think apps for work that are purely web/browser based are becoming more evident in every day life, I think that the likelihood of a system that's based solely on this will go the way of devices like the iOpener back 10 years ago or so. You can get a brand new laptop running Windows 7 with specs that blow the Chromebooks away for $300-$350 all day long, why wouldn't you?

You can get a 300 dollar Windows laptop thats faster then an A15? Who makes it?

I work with a lot of non-profits that are now 100% browser based, and the ones that aren't soon will be. You don't need an SSD based laptop to run Google apps.

If anything I don't get the hype about Chrome and wondering if a OS based around the browser will be as much of a headache to force updates as the Chrome standalone browser.

It's the total TCO that matters to large customers. I'm really not interested in debates about the actual hardware specs because I've heard it before and perceptual speed often matters more than synthetic benchmarks.

I work with a lot of non-profits that are now 100% browser based, and the ones that aren't soon will be. You don't need an SSD based laptop to run Google apps.

If anything I don't get the hype about Chrome and wondering if a OS based around the browser will be as much of a headache to force updates as the Chrome standalone browser.

It's the total TCO that matters to large customers. I'm really not interested in debates about the actual hardware specs because I've heard it before and perceptual speed often matters more than synthetic benchmarks.

I'm not sure about this 'hype'. No one seems to like it very much.

As I said somewhere above, security, simplicity and maintenance of these are far, far better than any other device, ios included. For most consumers, I'm sure tablets make more sense. For non-profits on browser apps, I'm sure these would be ideal. Nothing to maintain, nothing lost if they die/get stolen/misplaced, and extremely low costs. The SSD to me has made a huge difference in speed and convenience perception, which is why I got one for Windows 8. It really is that much better/productive.

I'm really not interested in debates about the actual hardware specs because I've heard it before and perceptual speed often matters more than synthetic benchmarks.

From experience, the perceptual speed on these things is shit. The hardware build quality is also, objectively and subjectively, shit.

Maybe it's chicken-and-egg. Samsung is dabbling in a new market, so they're not going to take a huge risk on it. They build cheap, cheap, cheap. But it's a fact that these feel cheap. The available system fonts and web-appery leads to most apps having a poor choice of fonts and not-quite-right graphics that make the entire UI feel cheap compared to Windows.

Don't give him any attention. He's obviously just saying ridiculous shit just to try to get a rise out of someone. He has absolutely no idea what he's talking about, and i'm relatively certain even less about technology in general. Small people with small brains frighten me as to what's going to become of the world.

Its worth pointing out the the 100gb free cloud storage is only free for 2 years. Just sayin'.

But if that's something you're interested in, it's worth $120, which makes the machine appear that much more affordable.

As a dedicated Gmail viewer this thing looks vaguely interesting, but it's definitely a stronger competitor against the netbooks of five years ago than it is against what's available on the market today. Google needs to mothball this project and get the dev resources repositioned somewhere they can do something of value for the company.

I'm confused. Who buys these? It's a netbook that's only good for web browsing and gmail. If that's all I'm doing, I'm spending the same $250 on a Nexus 7, which actually has apps available. I'm sure there's a small niche of people that are satisfied with a pure browser experience, want a physical keyboard (or for whatever other reason don't want a tablet), and are attracted by the low price tag, but I'm not sure this is a niche big enough to really make Google much money.

I'm confused. Who buys these? It's a netbook that's only good for web browsing and gmail. If that's all I'm doing, I'm spending the same $250 on a Nexus 7, which actually has apps available. I'm sure there's a small niche of people that are satisfied with a pure browser experience, want a physical keyboard (or for whatever other reason don't want a tablet), and are attracted by the low price tag, but I'm not sure this is a niche big enough to really make Google much money.

No, and that's the thing. They don't make much money off of Docs, either (historically anyhow). It's a strategic move. Like xbox in its early years, profits and winning the market comes second. I really think its second iteration, as a kbm-based interface for phones/tablets, will happen.

I like mine, and you're all still discounting the fact that these are maintenance free and more secure than anything at any price. It's worth $250 to not have your identity stolen, to not have spyware, to not have to pay a PC tech to clean your PC. All these are real costs incurred by normal people, not ARSians. The fact that it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Let me explain it in my best car metaphor sense. This is a Volvo, the value is safety (secure) and sanity (simplicity), not in spec quantity or even pure functionality.

Having said that, Samsung's horrible support and suspect design undermines the entire thing, disposable price or not.

I'm confused. Who buys these? It's a netbook that's only good for web browsing and gmail. If that's all I'm doing, I'm spending the same $250 on a Nexus 7, which actually has apps available. I'm sure there's a small niche of people that are satisfied with a pure browser experience, want a physical keyboard (or for whatever other reason don't want a tablet), and are attracted by the low price tag, but I'm not sure this is a niche big enough to really make Google much money.

No, and that's the thing. They don't make much money off of Docs, either (historically anyhow). It's a strategic move. Like xbox in its early years, profits and winning the market comes second. I really think its second iteration, as a kbm-based interface for phones/tablets, will happen.

But what exactly is the strategy? To corner a market that doesn't exist?

How does this help with phones/tablets? If that's the strategy, wouldn't pursuing something like what Motorola did with the Atrix make more sense than this?

No, and that's the thing. They don't make much money off of Docs, either (historically anyhow). It's a strategic move. Like xbox in its early years, profits and winning the market comes second. I really think its second iteration, as a kbm-based interface for phones/tablets, will happen.

I'm a bit fuzzy on what you mean here -- do you mean it will be a dock for phones / tablets? Do you meant it will get an Android OS? Do you mean Google will shift away from Android and towards ChromeOS for its phones / tablets? I don't see the strategic point of any of those. I could *sort of* see the strategic value if Google planned to become a devices and services company, rather than simply services, but if so, why would they go after market that is stagnating-to-shrinking? Can you explain what you meant?

Quote:

I like mine, and you're all still discounting the fact that these are maintenance free and more secure than anything at any price. It's worth $250 to not have your identity stolen, to not have spyware, to not have to pay a PC tech to clean your PC. All these are real costs incurred by normal people, not ARSians. The fact that it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Let me explain it in my best car metaphor sense. This is a Volvo, the value is safety (secure) and sanity (simplicity), not in spec quantity or even pure functionality.

To be very clear, I am by no means claiming or implying that anyone who buys and likes such a device is in any way wrong to do so. I was merely questioning why a company as large as Google is bothers going way outside their current business model for what appears to be peanuts in revenue (unless they think they are going to get lots of volume...see my earlier comments about wondering about what the market for the device is).

But what exactly is the strategy? To corner a market that doesn't exist?

If you only ever work on products and technology for existing markets you are a follower not a leader.

Or, your business plan makes no sense; there is no worthwhile strategy with ChromeOS because tablets have supplanted the need for the segment it occupies. ChromeOS was a play for Google to have a more of a leadership role in netbooks and since they have been killed by tablets, I can't imagine what point Google continues to see in this.

Or, your business plan makes no sense; there is no worthwhile strategy with ChromeOS because tablets have supplanted the need for the segment it occupies. ChromeOS was a play for Google to have a more of a leadership role in netbooks and since they have been killed by tablets, I can't imagine what point Google continues to see in this.

Yet they do continue, and they have even ported all the code to a new ARM platform. Perhaps their imagination is better than yours, or mine for that matter?

Or, your business plan makes no sense; there is no worthwhile strategy with ChromeOS because tablets have supplanted the need for the segment it occupies. ChromeOS was a play for Google to have a more of a leadership role in netbooks and since they have been killed by tablets, I can't imagine what point Google continues to see in this.

Yet they do continue, and they have even ported all the code to a new ARM platform. Perhaps their imagination is better than yours, or mine for that matter?

No argument there, and I'm interested in seeing where they go with this in the future. I'm just saying that to date, the business argument for this product in the market as it stands today is suspect at best.

No, and that's the thing. They don't make much money off of Docs, either (historically anyhow). It's a strategic move. Like xbox in its early years, profits and winning the market comes second. I really think its second iteration, as a kbm-based interface for phones/tablets, will happen.

I'm a bit fuzzy on what you mean here -- do you mean it will be a dock for phones / tablets? Do you meant it will get an Android OS? Do you mean Google will shift away from Android and towards ChromeOS for its phones / tablets? I don't see the strategic point of any of those. I could *sort of* see the strategic value if Google planned to become a devices and services company, rather than simply services, but if so, why would they go after market that is stagnating-to-shrinking? Can you explain what you meant?

Quote:

I like mine, and you're all still discounting the fact that these are maintenance free and more secure than anything at any price. It's worth $250 to not have your identity stolen, to not have spyware, to not have to pay a PC tech to clean your PC. All these are real costs incurred by normal people, not ARSians. The fact that it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Let me explain it in my best car metaphor sense. This is a Volvo, the value is safety (secure) and sanity (simplicity), not in spec quantity or even pure functionality.

To be very clear, I am by no means claiming or implying that anyone who buys and likes such a device is in any way wrong to do so. I was merely questioning why a company as large as Google is bothers going way outside their current business model for what appears to be peanuts in revenue (unless they think they are going to get lots of volume...see my earlier comments about wondering about what the market for the device is).

I mean long term, this is the kbm interface for Android. Or they use the tech to release a cloud(browser)-based Android. Google would always rather run things on servers, after all.

Short term, of course they want cloud computing to work. While it's a small business, there's little downside for them. They're disrupting MS minimally, and helping google drive minimally, but it's probably worth it strategically. MS always broke into markets after a few iterations, the same could be true here. Going to smartphone hardware will eventually pay off, even MS is also going that way (or trying to). Google can beat them on the low end in this market, if the market develops.

Once again, not every company has to win every market immediately or give up. Trouble with things like Zune and xbox 1st gen and WM and tablet PCs for MS was not that they were niche products or merely before their time. It was that MS didn't keep iterating and taking it seriously, damn the profit. Look at what ipod developed into. No one would look at that first gen device and think it would conquer the PC market. But Jobs just loved music devices and kept at it when it was an odd overpriced underfunctional expensive niche. Eventually his persistence paid off in a nonlinear way. Google has patience, and they're showing it with google+ and Chromium and Drive, because those are all potentially core platforms.

If Google is persistent, I think Chromium wins. A cloud OS in some form will become dominant. It's a bit too soon, but there are clear advantages with this platform - not just for google as a company, but for users. Itunes and ios and Android are a step on that path. Maybe they'll stay dominant and become more cloud oriented, and Chromium will never take off outside a niche, but I don't think the future is that obvious yet. MS is pushing their own cloud PC OS, and for businesses, maybe this is the future, maybe they never go full mobile for productivity. Who knows?

It seems clear that pre-iPhone, Google had the future of computing all figured out. The web would become an increasingly flexible platform, and essentially all of the value in the personal computing world would move out into the cloud. Local hardware/software infrastructure would serve merely as a shim to connect people, and what use was there for a complex, lumbering beast like Windows at that point? What the world needed was a lightweight client OS that did the only thing that still mattered — running a browser.

Then the iPhone was released, Apple launched the App Store, and suddenly native, platform-specific applications were resurgent. Google decided to respond to the threat posed by iOS by building its own system along a similar model, undermining its own vision for the future of computing.

But somewhere within Google, that vision persists, and the people who hold it have the clout to keep Chrome OS alive.

The original iPhone was originally designed to run web apps as well. The App Store wasn't available until a year and a half after the iPhone was first released. The idea of using the browser as the OS was big five or six years ago.

Or, your business plan makes no sense; there is no worthwhile strategy with ChromeOS because tablets have supplanted the need for the segment it occupies. ChromeOS was a play for Google to have a more of a leadership role in netbooks and since they have been killed by tablets, I can't imagine what point Google continues to see in this.

Yet they do continue, and they have even ported all the code to a new ARM platform. Perhaps their imagination is better than yours, or mine for that matter?

Maybe keeping the pilot light on for ChomeOS is so low it's worth it. Personally I think it's a terrible product, it's like those cheapass "Webpads" you used to get just before netbooks, like a laptop PC yet running WeirdOS 0.8 so nothing happens right.

As for "living in the browser" if you're computing workload is low enough yeah that's possible I guess, I always thought the cool thing about computers is how they can enrich your work and personal life rather than restricting your work and personal life to fit on a cheapo hubris-based laptop.

As for "living in the browser" if you're computing workload is low enough yeah that's possible I guess, I always thought the cool thing about computers is how they can enrich your work and personal life rather than restricting your work and personal life to fit on a cheapo hubris-based laptop.

While Chrome OS is oriented towards web apps, that doesn't mean things actually have to run remotely. Chrome OS does expose much of the underlying linux system, and you can write native c/c++ apps. Hence the move towards more desktop-call ARM processors.

I like mine, and you're all still discounting the fact that these are maintenance free and more secure than anything at any price. It's worth $250 to not have your identity stolen, to not have spyware, to not have to pay a PC tech to clean your PC. All these are real costs incurred by normal people, not ARSians. The fact that it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Let me explain it in my best car metaphor sense. This is a Volvo, the value is safety (secure) and sanity (simplicity), not in spec quantity or even pure functionality.

But your identity isn't any safer in a ChromeBook than it is on a normal PC. You can still get phished, you can still reuse your passwords, you can still get your password stolen when LinkedIn gets hacked. Unless Google has some kind of password management system, all of your information would live either in the Chrome browser (which would be protected with a password and be about as annoying as any laptop's authentication scheme) or in the cloud in some kind of file that could propagate if you're not careful.

The C7 should give pause to anyone yammering on about things like the possibility of ARM-based MacBooks: ARM's current cutting-edge architecture, the 1.7GHz dual-core Cortex-A15 used in the $249 Samsung Chromebook, is measurably and consistently slower than a 1.1GHz dual-core Celeron processor from Intel.

Why doesn't Google release Chromebooks which run Android but has a simple "Chromebook Mode". The Chromebook mode runs only Chrome, the way current chrome books do, as well as selected company approved apps.

Wouldn't something like that be an equally secure, easy, and far more flexible corporate (or non profit) solution than Chromebook OS? With the additional benefit that hardware makers would have reduced costs because its still the same Android OS they are using on tablets and phones? Additionally, Chromebook development finds its way back into android's stock browser.

Basically, I don't understand why Chromebook OS isn't simply a layer above Android, as opposed to being a replacement.

Why doesn't Google release Chromebooks which run Android but has a simple "Chromebook Mode". The Chromebook mode runs only Chrome, the way current chrome books do, as well as selected company approved apps.

Wouldn't something like that be an equally secure, easy, and far more flexible corporate (or non profit) solution than Chromebook OS? With the additional benefit that hardware makers would have reduced costs because its still the same Android OS they are using on tablets and phones? Additionally, Chromebook development finds its way back into android's stock browser.

Basically, I don't understand why Chromebook OS isn't simply a layer above Android, as opposed to being a replacement.

Maybe internal politics? I think the guy who runs their Chromebook initiative is a big deal in the industry, I don't know if they can just slot him and his project under Rubin without there being a ruffling of feathers.

The original iPhone was originally designed to run web apps as well. The App Store wasn't available until a year and a half after the iPhone was first released. The idea of using the browser as the OS was big five or six years ago.

This is not the same thing. Every App in the original iPhone OS was a native app. The only limitation was that 3rd parties were not allowed to write native apps. In contrast, even Google's apps on ChromeOS (outside the Chrome browser, if you consider that an app instead of the OS) are web apps.

The iPhone OS was always designed to place a real OS with native apps on a phone. Apple simply prevented 3rd parties from doing so in the first iteration. The only remaining question was whether they did this because the tools, APIs, and documentation just wasn't ready yet, or whether they had a change in ideas in the year preceding the release of the App Store. Unfortunately, outside of some unverifiable rumors, there is no evidence either way AFAIK.

Is there a much larger demand for these things than is widely known? It just seems odd that they are being cranked out and yet they appear to be a bit of a novelty. Maybe Google and the OEMs know something we don't.